20p. - ericof children's and adolescent literature dealing with disabilities is effective in...

DOCUMENT RESUME

ED 410 217 SP 037 480

AUTHOR Andrews, Sharon; Clementson, John J.TITLE Active Learning's Effect upon Preservice Teachers' Attitudes

toward Inclusion.PUB DATE [97]

NOTE 20p.

PUB TYPE Reports Research (143)EDRS PRICE MF01/PC01 Plus Postage.DESCRIPTORS *Active Learning; Disabilities; Elementary Secondary

Education; Higher Education; *Inclusive Schools;Mainstreaming; Preservice Teacher Education; *Regular andSpecial Education Relationship; *Student Teacher Attitudes;Student Teachers; Teacher Education Programs; Teacher Role

IDENTIFIERS *Preservice Teachers

ABSTRACTThe purpose of this study was to determine the effect of

active learning techniques and the use of supplemental literature dealingwith disabilities in a required introduction to education and specialeducation course on preservice teachers (N =67) attitudes toward inclusion.The active learning techniques included participation in simulationactivities, awareness activities, role playing, problem solving, andopen-ended discussions. Throughout the semester there were also field trips.Statistical analysis indicated that change in preservice teacher attitudestoward inclusion from pre- to post-survey was statistically significant. Thepost-survey results showed students were generally more favorable regardinginclusion but have some doubts if it benefits all students. Post-surveyresults also indicated that these preservice teachers were not sure if allteachers can effectively teach students with special needs and showed aconcern that more than minor changes are needed to facilitate successfulinclusion. The survey instrument and table of data are appended. (Contains 22references.) (JLS)

********************************************************************************* Reproductions supplied by EDRS are the best that can be made *

* from the original document. *

********************************************************************************

MANUSCRIPT COVER SHEET

Active Learning's Effect Upon PreserviceTeachers' Attitude Toward Inclusion

PRINCIPAL AUTHOR:Dr. Sharon AndrewsAssistant Professor of EducationEducation DepartmentAugustana College29th & SummitSioux Falls, SD 57197

Dr. John J. ClementsonAssistant Professor of EducationEducation DepartmentAugustana College29th & SummitSioux Falls, SD 57197

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATIONOffice of Educational Research and improvement

EDUCATIONAL RESOURCESERIC)

INFORMATIONCENTE (

This document as been reproduced asreceived from the person or organizationoriginating it

0 Minor changes have been made to improvereproduction Quality.

islil Points Ot view or opinions stated in this docu-ment do not necessarily represent officialOERI position or policy.

,,,,..tr

EST COPY AVAILABLE

2

PERMISSION TO REPRODUCE ANDDISSEMINATE THIS MATERIAL

HAS BEEN GRANTED BY

TO THE EDUCATIONAL RESOURCESINFORMATION CENTER (ERIC)

ABSTRACT

Teacher educators must prepare preservice teachers for

the reality of today's classrooms by employing teaching

methodology that fosters a positive attitude toward

inclusion. The purpose of this study was to determine

the effect of active learning techniques on preservice

teachers' attitudes toward inclusion. Statistical

analysis indicated that change in preservice teacher

attitude toward inclusion from pre- to post-survey was

statistically significant.

3

PRESERVICE TEACHER ATTITUDE--1

BACKGROUND

P.L. 94-142 and its amendments mandate that every

child has the right to a free appropriate public

education in the least restrictive environment. As

more and more regular classrooms provide an education

for all students, with or without a disability,

preservice teachers must be prepared to meet the

challenges of these inclusive classrooms -and teacher

educators must closely examine their methodology and

its effect upon preservice teacher attitude.

HISTORICAL PERSPECTIVE

In a review of the research, Lundstrom (1979)

found that teachers tend to hold negative attitudes

toward both students with disabilities and inclusion.

In 1982, Kunzweiler concluded that without attention to

how preservice teacher education programs are

structured to promote positive attitudes toward

inclusion, it would not succeed. Others have concurred

that inclusion's success or failure depends in large

part upon the teacher's attitude toward students with

disabilities (Parish, Nunn, & Hattrop, 1982) and

current research has shown that when educators are

prepared for inclusive classrooms, attitudes toward

4


inclusion change and without preparation, negative

attitudes remain (Dickens-Smith, 1995).

While there have been studies conducted to

determine preservice teachers' understanding of

inclusion (Sparapani, 1995) and studies carried out to

identify preservice teachers' attitudes toward

inclusion at various points during their program of

preparation and field experiences (Folsom-Meek,

Nearing, & Krampf, 1995; Hoover, 1984; Leyser, 1982;

Sanche, 1990; Sesow & Adams, 1982; Wilczenski, 1994),

little has been done to determine the effect of

teaching methodology on preservice teachers' attitude

toward inclusion. However, a 1979 study by Orlansky

designed to determine the effect of teaching

methodology on students' attitude toward inclusion, an

active-learning approach, defined as spending no more

than 25% of classtime in lecture, was found to

favorably influence preservice teachers' attitudes

toward inclusion when compared to a lecture-based

approach, where 75% or more of classtime was devoted to

lecture.

Many (Fein & Ginsberg, 1978; Radencich, 1986;

Stroud, 1981; Umerlik, 1992) have reported that the use


of children's and adolescent literature dealing with

disabilities is effective in promoting awareness,

understanding, and acceptance of as well as creating a

positive attitude toward disabilities. Radencich

(1986) recommends that the use of literature dealing

with disabilities should include classroom discussion

and follow-up, hands-on activities. Finally, Anthony

(1972) and Horne (1979) both concluded that is it most

effective to provide preservice teachers with both a

cognitive and affective experience when attempting to

change attitudes toward disabilities.

Hudson, Reisberg, and Wolf (1983) knew long ago

that inclusion's success depends largely on whether or

not teachers have positive attitudes toward it. Thus,

as inclusion becomes more prevalent, it is necessary to

determine attitudes of preservice teachers toward

inclusion (Stoler, 1992; Moisio, 1994). In addition to

determining preservice teachers' background knowledge

and existing attitudes toward inclusion, promotion of

positive attitudes toward inclusion must take place to

insure its success.

PURPOSE

The purpose of this study was to determine if

6


active learning techniques and the use of supplemental

literature dealing with disabilities in a required

introduction to education and special education course

had an effect upon preservice teachers' attitude toward

inclusion.

SUBJECTS

Survey participants were students enrolled in

sections of a required introduction to education and

special education course during the interim and spring

terms. The total number of respondents completing the

pre- and post-survey was 67.

ACTIVE-LEARNING TECHNIQUES

Students enrolled in the course are engaged in

active learning through participating in simulation

activities, awareness activities, role playing, problem

solving activities, and open-ended discussions.

Several field trips to area facilities providing

services to children, adolescents, and adults with

disabilities are taken throughout the semester.

Students also select and share children's literature

related to disabilities and make suggestions for

classroom use. A poster enumerating "Tips for

Teachers...Suggestions for Successful Inclusion", is

7


created, shared, and displayed. In addition, students

self-select a novel related to disabilities and engage

in small group discussions with their classmates to

share, compare, and contrast how the different novels

dealt with issues related to disabilities.

PROCEDURE

A modified version of an instrument used by Moisio

(1994) defining inclusion and representing various

viewpoints related to it was used to gather pre and

post data regarding preservice teachers' attitude

toward inclusion and the results statistically analyzed

to determine if significant attitude change toward

inclusion had occurred. (See Figure 1) Students were

asked to indicate, by circling, if they strongly

agreed, agreed, were neutral, disagreed, or strongly

disagreed with the survey statement. In both sections,

the survey was administered the first day of the course

prior to any explanation of the course to collect pre-

survey data and again on the last day of the course to

collect post-survey data.

RESULTS

A series of t-tests for paired (dependent) samples

was used to compare pre- and post-survey results and


determine if active learning techniques and the use of

supplemental literature had significantly affected

preservice teachers' attitude toward inclusion. (See

Table 1) Statistical significance was achieved in a

number of areas.

Students' responses to survey items indicating

their background knowledge about inclusion revealed

that while students were already familiar with

inclusion and the motivation behind it, their knowledge

base was significantly strengthened. (#1--I am familiar

with inclusion--t=10.565, p>.05, p=0.000) (#2--The

primary motivation behind inclusion is to save money

t= 3.026, p>.05, p= .004).

The most encouraging results were in response to

survey item #3--Students with special needs will

benefit from the inclusive classroom. While students

presurvey responses indicated that they were neutral

but leaning toward agreeing with the statement (pre-

survey mean=3.552), results of the statistical analysis

indicated that students' positive attitude toward

inclusion became significantly stronger (t=3.492,

p>.05, p=.001, post-survey mean=4.104). However,

survey items that readdressed this issue with alternate

9


wording did not achieve statistical significance.

Students remained neutral from pre- to post-survey in

response to Item #5--Separating and labeling students

is not necessary to provide a quality education to

them--(t=.294, p>.05, p=.770, pre-mean=3.373, post-

mean=3.418). In response to item #7--Separating

students with special needs is unethical--students

tended to consistently agree with this statement

(t=.539, p>.05, p=.591, pre-mean=2.522, post-

mean=2.448) and their attitudes were not, therefore,

significantly changed.

Results of pre- to post-responses to item #4--Some

students are best educated in a separate classroom or

facility--were most interesting (t=3.126, p>.05,

p=.003). This result is consistent with survey

responses to items #5 and #7 and is indicative of a

pattern. While students agreed that inclusion is a

good idea and have positive attitudes toward it, they

aren't convinced that it is the best approach for all

students. Students appeared to struggle with

responding to item #4 and often circled the word "some"

and jotted notes about students with severe or profound

disabilities, indicating that these students may be


better served in a separate facility. This is entirely

logical, since we visit both a residential facility for

children with severe mental and physical disabilities

and one serving children with severe emotional and

behavioral disorders; this is usually the only

experience students have had with those who are

severely disabled and have not been exposed to

inclusive settings that serve these populations.

Survey respondents were neutral in response to

item #6--Good teachers can teach all students--(pre-

survey mean=3.194, post-survey mean=3.224) and results

were not statistically significant. It should be noted

that students often questioned what the survey meant by

"good." Students initially disagreed with item #9

Only minor adjustments will be needed to teach all

students in the regular classroom--(pre-survey

mean=2.373, post-survey mean=2.090) and their level of

disagreement significantly increased (t=2.228, p>.05,

p=.029). It can be concluded that these preservice

teachers aren't sure if all teachers can effectively

teach students with special needs and that it takes

more than minor changes to facilitate successful

inclusion.

11


Finally, responses to item #8--It is more

important where a student is educated, than what s/he

is taught--(t=1.000, p>.05, p=.321) were not

significant.

DISCUSSION

Preservice teacher education courses that deal

with disabilities need to do much more than provide

background information related to inclusion and must

employ teaching methodology that allows students to

become personally involved with course content. For

many preservice teachers, coursework related to

disabilities is limited, thus, it is even more vital

that these introductory courses make students aware of

and cause them to consider their attitudes toward

disabilities since all teachers will, at some time,

have students with special needs in their classroom.

The results of this study indicate that the

teaching methodology of those involved in preservice

teacher programs can play an influential role in

fostering positive attitudes toward inclusion and

ultimately toward students with disabilities. Given

the nature of our inclusive classrooms today,

preservice teacher training programs must employ

12


effective teaching methodology. The issue of

preservice teacher attitude toward inclusion must be

addressed. Future research is needed to further

examine the effects of teaching methodology upon

students and implications for other disciplines must be

explored.

13


References

Anthony, W.A. (1972). Societal rehabilitation:

Changing society's attitude toward the physical and

mentally disabled. Rehabilitation Psychology. 19, 117-

26.

Dickens-Smith, M. (1995). The effect of inclusion

training on teacher attitude toward inclusion. Chicago

Public Schools, Chicago, IL. (ERIC Document

Reproduction Service No. ED 381 486)

Fein, R.L., & Ginsberg, A.H. (1978). Realistic

literature about the handicapped. The Readi g Teacher.

37(1), 802-05.

Folsom-Meek, S.L., Nearing, R.J., and Krampf, H.

(1995). Attitudes of preservice physical education

teachers toward teaching students with mild

disabilities, Portland, OR. (ERIC Document Reproduction

Service No. ED 385 539)

Heim, A.B. (1994). Beyond the stereotypes

Characters with mental disabilities in children's

books. School Library Journal. 40(9), 139-42.

Hoover, J.J. (1984). Preservice teachers'

attitudes toward mainstreaming prior to student

teaching. Journal of Teacher Education. 35(4), 49-51.


Horne, M. (1979). Attitudes and mainstreaming: A

literature review for school psychologists. Psychology

in the Schools. 16(1), 61-67.

Hudson, F., Reisberg, R.E., & Wolf, R. (1983).

Changing teachers' perceptions of mainstreaming.

Teacher Education and Special Education. 6(1), 18-24.

Kunzweiler, C. (1982). Mainstreaming will fail

unless there is a change in professional attitude and

institutional structure. Education. 102(3), 284-88.

Leyser, Y. (1982). Modifying attitudes of

prospective elementary school teachers toward

mainstreaming. Journal for Special Educators. 18(4), 1-

10.

Lundstrom, K.V. (1979). Measuring attitude change

toward special needs learners. North Dakota State

University, Fargo, ND, College of Home Economics. (ERIC

Document Reproduction Service No. ED 200 539)

Moisio, M.D. (1994). A survey of attitudes of

undergraduate education majors toward inclusion.

Bowling Green State University, Bowling Green, OH.

(ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 376 688)

Orlansky, M.D. (1979). Active learning and student

attitudes toward exceptional children. Exceptional

15


Children, 46(1), 49-52.

Parish, R.S., Nunn, G.P., & Hattrop, D. (1982). An

attempt to reduce negative attitudes of future teachers

toward exceptional children. College Student Journal.

1.E(3), 254-57.

Radencich, M.C. (1986). Literature for children

and adolescents about people who happen to have a

handicap. Techniques: A Journal for Remedial Education

and Counseling. 2, 364-69.

Sanche, R.P. (1990). Preservice teacher attitudes

toward mainstreaming before and after internship. B.C.

Journal of Special Education. 14(3), 233-40.

Sesow, D.C., & Adams, G.L. (1982). Future

teachers' attitudes toward mainstreaming. Education.

122(3), 280-283.

Sparapani, E.F., Abel, F.J., Easton, S.E.,

Edwards, P., & Herbster, D.L. (1995). Pre-service

teacher education majors' understanding of issues

related to diversity and exceptionality. Detroit, MI.

(ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 379 280)

Stoler, R.D. (1992). Perceptions of regular

education teachers toward inclusion of all handicapped

students in their classrooms. The Clearing House.

16


55(1), 60-62.

Stroud, J.G. (1981). The handicapped in adolescent

fiction. Journal of Reading. 24(6), 519-22.

Umerlik, A. (1992). Fostering an understanding of

the disabled through young adult literature. School

Library Media Monthly. 8(9), 35-36, 50.

Wilczenski, F.L. (1994). Changes in attitudes

toward mainstreaming among undergraduate education

students. Educational Research Ouarterly. 17(1), 5-17.

17

FIGURE 1

*****************************************************************INCLUSION SURVEY

*****************************************************************ID # GENDER: M or F CLASS RANK: SR JR SO FR Other:

GPA: 1.0-1.5 1.6-2.0 2.1-2.5 2.6-3.0 3.1-3.5 3.6-4.0

MAJOR(S) MINOR(S)*****************************************************************DEFINITION OF INCLUSION: the education of all students, bothwith and without disabilities (e.g., learning disabilities,behavioral problems...), in a regular elementary, junior high, orhigh school classroom*****************************************************************Circle the letter(s) that best match your reaction to each of thefollowing statements: SA=strongly agree

A=agreeN=neutralD=disagreeSD=strongly disagree

*****************************************************************1.I am familiar with inclusion.

SA A N D SD

2.The primary motivation behind inclusion is to save money.SA A N D SD

3.Students with special needs will benefit from the inclusiveclassroom.

SA A N D SD

4.Some students are best educated in a separate classroom orfacility.

SA A N D SD

5.Separating and labeling students is not necessary to provide aquality education to them.

SA A N D SD

6.Good teachers can teach all students.SA A N D SD

7.Separating students with special needs is unethical.SA A N D SD

8.It is more important where a student is educated, than what s/heis taught.

SA A N D SD

9.Only minor adjustments will be needed to teach all students inthe regular classroom.

SA A N D SD*****************************************************************

Is

TA

BL

E 1

.

QU

EST

ION

NM

EA

NSD

DF

tPR

OB

AB

ILIT

YSI

GN

IFIC

AN

CE

1.I

am f

amili

ar w

ith in

clus

ion.

Pre

673.

642

0.94

9966

10.5

650.

000

*

Post

674.

836

0.37

3

2. T

he p

rim

ary

mot

ivat

ion

behi

ndin

clus

ion

is to

sav

e m

oney

.Pr

e67

2.26

90.

845

663.

026

0.00

4*

Post

671.

836

0.93

1

3. S

tude

nts

with

spe

cial

nee

dsW

ill b

enef

it fr

om th

e in

clus

ive

clas

sroo

m.

Pre

673.

553

1.04

966

3.49

20.

002

*

Post

674.

104

0.87

3

4. S

ome

stud

ents

are

bes

ted

ucat

ed in

a s

epar

ate

clas

sroo

m o

r fa

cilit

y.

Pre

673.

896

0.06

366

3.12

60.

003

*

Post

674.

224

0.73

4

5. S

epar

atin

g an

d la

belin

gst

uden

ts is

not

nec

essa

ry to

prov

ide

a qu

ality

edu

catio

n to

them

.

Pre

673.

373

1.04

266

0.29

40.

770

Post

673.

418

1.13

0

6. G

ood

teac

hers

can

teac

h al

lst

uden

ts.

Pre

673.

194

1.04

866

0.20

70.

837

Post

672.

522

1.20

4

7. S

epar

atin

g st

uden

ts w

ithsp

ecia

l nee

ds is

une

thic

al.

Pre

672.

522

0.82

366

0.53

90.

592

Post

672.

480

1.03

4

8.It

is m

ore

impo

rtan

t whe

re a

stud

ent i

s ed

ucat

ed r

athe

r th

anw

hat s

/he

is ta

ught

.

Pre

672.

149

0.90

966

1.00

00.

321

Post

672.

299

1.19

4

9. O

nly

min

or a

djus

tmen

ts w

illbe

nee

ded

to te

ach

all s

tude

nts

in th

e re

gula

r cl

assr

oom

Pre

672.

3733

0.81

366

2,22

80.

029

*

Post

672.

090

0.08

*Sie

nifi

cant

at t

he o

= .0

5 al

oha

leve

l

9

U.S. Department of EducationOffice of Educational Research and Improvement (OERI)

Educational Resources Information Center (ERIC)

REPRODUCTION RELEASE

I. DOCUMENT IDENTIFICATION:

(Specific Document)

Title: I'

Author(s): dya

Corporate Source:

tIC-t-Ac4

Ac:Laa..C.e/2L4-Ggis A 44

Publication Date:

II. REPRODUCTION RELEASE:In order to disseminate as widely as possible timely and significant materials of interest to the educational community, documents announced

in the monthly abstract journal of the ERIC system, Resources in Education (RIE), are usually made available to users in microfiche, reproducedpaper copy, and electronic/optical media, and sold through the ERIC Document Reproduction Service (EDRS) or other ERIC vendors. Credit isgiven to the source of each document, and, if reproduction release is granted, one of the following notices is affixed to the document.

If permission is granted to reproduce and disseminate the identified document, please CHECK ONE of the following two options and sign atthe bottom of the page.

ErCheck here

For Level 1 Release:Permitting reproduction inmicrofiche (4" x 6" film) orother ERIC archival media(e.g., electronic or optical)and paper copy.

The sample sticker shown below will be

affixed to all Level 1 documents

PERMISSION TO REPRODUCE ANDDISSEMINATE THIS MATERIAL

HAS BEEN GRANTED BY

NO

qTO THE EDUCATIONAL RESOURCES

INFORMATION CENTER (ERIC)

Level 1

The sample sticker shown below will beaffixed to all Level 2 documents

PERMISSION TO REPRODUCE ANDDISSEMINATE THIS

MATERIAL IN OTHER THAN PAPERCOPY HAS BEEN GRANTED BY

\e

TO THE EDUCATIONAL RESOURCESINFORMATION CENTER (ERIC)

Level 2

Documents will be processed as indicated provided reproduction quality permits. If permissionto reproduce is granted, but neither box is checked, documents will be processed at Level 1.

EICheck here

For Level 2 Release:Permitting reproduction inmicrofiche (4° x 6" film) orother ERIC archival media(e.g., electronic or optical),but not in paper copy.

I hereby grant to the Educational Resources Information Center (ERIC) nonexclusive permission to reproduce and disseminatethis document as indicated above. Reproduction from the ERIC microfiche or electronidoptical media by persons other thanERIC employees and its system contractors requires permission from the copyright holder. Exception is made for non-profitreproduction by libraries and other service agencies to satisfy information needs of educators in response to discrete inquiries."

Sign Sig athere)please

e:

.a4-i/71ization/Address:

lJ

.0z.e-v14;1-a://s, SD LD/2 /9'1

Printed Name/Position/Title: Osst Nit, f1-/SharDCI rew; , Ed

rifeiSIVOne: (645. -3 FAX: tcusi3 epc 6g-7 ,.33---WP/co.E-Mail Address: Date:

anc 6,-43-91ifew in gt oeepp;990eti

631

(over)

III. DOCUMENT AVAILABILITY INFORMATION (FROM NON-ERIC SOURCE):

If permission to reproduce is not granted to ERIC, or, if you wish ERIC to cite the availability of the document from another source,please provide the following information regarding the availability of the document. (ERIC will not announce a document unless it ispublicly available, and a dependable source can be specified. Contributors should also be aware that ERIC selection criteria aresignificantly more stringent for documents that cannot be made available through EDRS.)

Publisher/Distributor:

Address:

Price:

IV. REFERRAL OF ERIC TO COPYRIGHT/REPRODUCTION RIGHTS HOLDER:

If the right to grant reproduction release is held by someone other than the addressee, please provide the appropriate name and address:

Name:

Address:

V. WHERE TO SEND THIS FORM:

Send this form to the following ERIC Clearinghouse:

ERIC/REC2805 E. Tenth StreetSmith Research Center, 150Indiana UniversityBloomington, IN 47408

However, if solicited by the ERIC Facility, or if making an unsolicited contribution to ERIC, return this form (and the document beingcontributed) to:

-Eftte-Prowssittg-and-Reference-Facil ty4100-West-Streetr2d -Floor

LacrrErt-,-Maryiend-20707-3598-

-Telephonei-301-497-4080-Toti-Free:-1300=-799:3-742-

---Flar-3Crtz953=0263-_e.mail4er-iciaciginetechgov

WWWrhttp://ericfac:pretard:ds-Ccom(Rev. 6/96)